Now, it is not above sixty years since, that the Jesuit CASNEDI, upon these or similar principles, maintained in five folios, published by him in Portugal, that " AT THE DAY OF "JUDGMENT GOD WILL SAY TO MANY, COME, MY WELL-BE"LOVED, YOU WHO HAVE COMMITTED MURDER, WHO HAVE "BLASPHEMED, &c. &c. BECAUSE YOU BELIEVED THAT ÎN SƠ 66 DOING YOU WERE RIGHT.”

Of this horrible proposition MR. DALLAS was not ignorant: and since it was not to be denied that CASNEDI had thus publicly recorded his own impiety, and that of his sect, Mr. DALLAS expressly defends the proposition, as that of " A MAN “OF PIETY;” affirming, that to maintain "that the moral merit or demerit of an action depended upon the belief and in"tention of the agent, is a very simple and INCONTRO“VERTIBLE proposition; but being expressed in ardent terms, "it makes a flaming show among the articles of impeachment now instituted against the whole Society of Jesus."

66

If such reasoning as MR. DALLAS's, in defence of such reasoning as CASNEDI's, could be endured in this Christian country, we should be indeed at a very low ebb, both of principle and practice: and if general horror and indignation do not follow so foul and undisguised an attempt to consecrate impiety, to justify vice, and to erect a temple of worse than heathen corruption upon the ruins of our common Christianity; then, the sooner we renounce our national pretensions to a purer faith and a better practice than prevailed in the days of Paganism or Papacy, the better.

It must be obvious to the most superficial observer, that if MR. DALLAS's notions of the nature of moral responsibility, and moral merit or demerit, were once to be generally acted upon, the whole frame of society itself must shortly be dissolved. Upon this principle, every man would at once become his own lawgiver, and, having no other rule or measure for his actions, than the particular view which he might himself

❝ blind leaders of the blind," how could it happen but that "both" should “fall into the ditch ?"

happen to take of them; in other words, being only guilty or innocent in that proportion in which he might consider himself so, the greatest abominations would be divested of their impurity, and men would be converted into wild beasts upon principle!

But let us suppose that Society would continue to exist, notwithstanding the operation of such doctrines as these. Is it nothing, that individuals are to be imbued by their spiritual teachers with notions, which, if the Bible be true, must infallibly involve them in perdition? Is it nothing, that such blind guides as MR. DALLAS'S "men of piety," are thus to "lead the blind" until " both fall into the ditch?" Are the solemnities of a Judgment Day to be thus trifled with? And is He who is "of purer eyes than to behold iniquity," to be thus openly defied and set at nought? If it be true, that "without holiness no man shall see the Lord," is it to be endured that those men should be held up to our admiration, who, while they profess to obey him, actually dispute the equity of his moral government, and deny the obligations of his own commands? But it is necessary to quit CASNEDI for the last Casuist who is defended by MR. DALLAS.

The last Casuist, though not the least, of whom MR. DALLAS undertakes the defence, is BENZI (p. 68), whom he is pleased (with the same defiance of public opinion, and the same contempt for historical testimony, as in other instances) to call "a respectable and much-injured man, universally "revered in Venice, where he was a distinguished Director "and Preacher."

Of BENZI, it had been stated in the Brief Account of the Jesuits, that "he defended les attouchemens mamillaires "practised by the Jesuit Confessors."

although

To this charge MR. DALLAS replies, that "BENZI is represented in several French and Italian libels, "in the foul columns copied by the writer of the pamphlet," yet that, "far from teaching the horrors imputed to him, he merely gave an opinion in writing, on being consulted whe

4

"ther certain trespasses were to be considered as casès reserv3 ed, or not reserved. It was merely," says MR. DALLAS, 66 a questio juris, a technical opinion, and not a decision on the subject-matter: malice and calumny did the rest.”

Now, is MR. DALLAS really ignorant, that the justification of this flagitious practice by BENZI was so public and unequivocal as to induce no less a personage than Pope BENEDICT XIV. to issue a solemn decree against the doctrine taught by BENZI, both as infamous in itself, and as tending to the depra vation of an ordinance universally esteemed a Sacrament in the Catholic Church? If MR. DALLAS was in possession of this fact, did he conceive, that, by observing silence upon it, other persons would not come to the knowledge of it? This impiety, then, was not only ascribed to BENZI by "French "and Italian Libels;" but even a Pope, the infallible head of the Holy Roman Church (who must be presumed to have possessed better means of information than mere Libels could have furnished, and who was not likely to have issued a decree upon no better authority than they afforded), entered a public Protest in the face of the world against such an abuse of what the Church at large regarded as one of her holiest rites. So far was the Pope from considering BENZI's crime as only " а questio juris," or a mere "technical opinion" on a case submitted to him, that he openly charged him with proclaiming the innocence and propriety of a practice which must excite the detestation and horror of every one, whose moral senses are not become completely obtuse! It is remarkable, that the Pope and his Council had no sooner published their condemnation, than the Jesuits, in defiance of the censure, printed a superior Edition of BENZI's work at Lucca, and published it at a very cheap rate *.

Upon what ground, then, does MR. DALLAS venture on the assertion, that BENZI was "far from teaching the horrors im

*See (among other evidences) the Manifesto of the King of Portugal addressed to the Bishops and Clergy of his Kingdom, in proof of the above facts.

"puted to him?" by what perversion of terms does he choose to call such a man "respectable?"-and upon what grounds does he impute to "malice and calumny," the censure which the accredited heads of the Romish Church felt it due to their own character, and to public morals, to proclaim against such a writer? A few remarks present themselves on the attempt which has thus been made by MR. DALLAS, to defend the above-named Casuists, and their pernicious doctrines and opinions, at the expense of truth and decency: a wise Heathen would have acted differently,

"Non ego mendosos ausim defendere mores!" OVID.

In the first place, it may be observed, that the course which he has taken will not surprise any persons who are acquainted with his former writings. In a work published by him in 1802, he writes thus of an erroneous conscience: "Those who think that the law which requires us to be faith"ful to our engagements is not obligatory towards HERETICS, " and that we may lawfully break it, in respect to them, have 66 an erroneous conscience. But what must we do in case of 66 an erroneous conscience? I answer, that WE OUGHT ALWAYS "TO FOLLOW THE DICTATES OF CONSCIENCE, EVEN WHEN IT "IS ERRONEOUS, AND WHETHER THE ERROR BE VINCIBLE OR INVINCIBLE.”—See MR. DALLAS's Elements of SelfKnowledge, part ii. chap. xviii. p. 201. Now, what is this but the Casuistry of the Jesuits? Upon this principle, there is not a single persecution which has vexed and wasted the Church of Christ, ever since Papal Rome has destroyed those whom she thought fit to call HERETICS, which may not be fully justified! If MR. DALLAS's view of morals be correct, then the DUKE OF ALVA, the DUKES OF GUISE, and the POPES, who have delighted in Protestant blood, and the QUEEN who lighted up her fires throughout this kingdom, were not only innocent of all crime in what they did, but would have been guilty of a gross dereliction of duty if they had acted otherwise; since MR. DALLAS maintains, that there is a positive

and perpetual obligation upon us "to follow the dictates of "conscience" whether right or wrong: "we ought," says he, 66 ALWAYS to follow the dictates of conscience, even when it is 66 erroneous, and whether the error be vincible or invincible.” It was precisely upon this principle that THOMAS PAINE justified his blasphemies and impieties against revealed Religion. Let the answer which was given by the BISHOP OF Landaff to the infamous opinion of PAINE upon an erroneous con"science" suffice for an answer to MR. DALLAS also:

"A fever" (says the Bishop)," which you and those about you expected would prove mortal, made you remember, with " renewed satisfaction, that you had written the former part of your Age of Reason-and you know therefore, you say, by "experience, the conscientious trial of your own principles. "I admit this declaration to be a proof of the sincerity of "your persuasion, but I cannot admit it to be any proof of the "truth of your principles. What is conscience? Is it, as "had been thought, an internal monitor implanted in us by "the Supreme Being, and dictating to us, on all occasions, "what is right or wrong? Or is it merely our own judg"ment of the moral rectitude or turpitude of our own actions? "I take the word (with Mr. Locke), in the latter, as in the "only intelligible sense. Now, who sees not that our judg"ments of virtue and vice, right and wrong, are not always "formed from an enlightened and dispassionate use of our

66

reason, in the investigation of truth? They are more "generally formed from the nature of the religion we profess; "from the quality of the civil government, under which we "live; from the general manners of the age, or the particular "manners of the persons with whom we associate; from the "education we have had in our youth; from the books we "have read at a more advanced period; and from other acci"dental causes. Who sees not that, on this account, con"science may be conformable or repugnant to the law of "nature?—may be certain, or doubtful?—and that it can be

no criterion of moral rectitude, even when it is certain, be